Parowan midair?

On 6/16/2010 12:08 PM, Andy wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, wrote:
No information, but the thought of a 75 mile flight with 5 feet of
wing missing is not something I'd like to face.

-John

On Jun 16, 2:48 pm, wrote:



SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about completing a contest task, and winning it, with unknown
damage to the fuselage?

Andy


An amazing ability to put the crash out of his mind, and focus on the
contest task.

I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled
his way back with 5 feet of wing missing...

Ramy

On Jun 16, 12:02*pm, jcarlyle wrote:
No information, but the thought of a 75 mile flight with 5 feet of
wing missing is not something I'd like to face.

-John

On Jun 16, 2:48 pm, Andy wrote:



SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.

Any more information available?

Andy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 16, 9:39*pm, Ramy wrote:
I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled
his way back with 5 feet of wing missing...

Ramy

[snip]

A scary scenario but I'd want to be feeling *really* comfortable about
how the ship is handling before extending the prop/running the engine.
If something is wrong you may make it worse, and if it gets worse you
may seriously impair your ability to bail out. You need to retract the
engine again, which normally involves closing the throttle and turning
off the ignition and flying slow enough to be able to use the prop-
stop then retract back the mast. If the 26E got uncontrollable under
power you would need time to do something like close the throttle,
turn of the ignition and retract the mast far enough for the prop to
strike the fuselage so the running or windmilling prop does not chew
you up on exit... and you hope anything still hanging out there does
not get in the way of your egress. Enough armchair quarterbacking from
me, the pilot involved is very experienced on type so it will be
interesting to see what he did to pull this off. Fantastic that he
made it back safe.

The notion of a glider being allowed to attempt to complete a task
after a mid-air does not sit well with me. It is just the wrong
inducement for pilots involved. And given all the other SSA rules
focus on things like start safety etc, this just seems out of place. I
hope the rules committee look at this.

Darryl

Why were they circling in opposite directions? Didn't see one
another?

On Jun 17, 4:37*am, Dan wrote:
Why were they circling in opposite directions? *Didn't see one
another?

apparently not, since they collided.

Dan wrote:
Why were they circling in opposite directions? Didn't see one
another?


There's a rhetorical question!
Perhaps if they DID see, they were playing chicken?

Brian W

On Jun 16, 11:38*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39*pm, Ramy wrote: I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled
his way back with 5 feet of wing missing...

Ramy

[snip]

A scary scenario but I'd want to be feeling *really* comfortable about
how the ship is handling before extending the prop/running the engine.
If something is wrong you may make it worse, and if it gets worse you
may seriously impair your ability to bail out. You need to retract the
engine again, which normally involves closing the throttle and turning
off the ignition and flying slow enough to be able to use the prop-
stop then retract back the mast. If the 26E got uncontrollable under
power you would need time to do something like close the throttle,
turn of the ignition and retract the mast far enough for the prop to
strike the fuselage so the running or windmilling prop does not chew
you up on exit... and you hope anything still hanging out there does
not get in the way of your egress. Enough armchair quarterbacking from
me, the pilot involved is very experienced on type so it will be
interesting to see what he did to pull this off. Fantastic that he
made it back safe.

The notion of a glider being allowed to attempt to complete a task
after a mid-air does not sit well with me. It is just the wrong
inducement for pilots involved. And given all the other SSA rules
focus on things like start safety etc, this just seems out of place. I
hope the rules committee look at this.

Darryl

The preliminary report is on the FAA web site today. Unless the FAA
and NTSB were on site yesterday, I suspect until released by the FAA
and pilot interviews completed, neither glider (and maybe pilot) is
available for flight or repair.

YMMV,

Frank Whiteley

At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.

I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives
"irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate
with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles
with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't
any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true,
why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing?

-John

On 6/17/2010 7:29 AM, jcarlyle wrote:
At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.

I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives
"irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate
with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles
with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't
any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true,
why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing?

The SSA report said the collision occurred 75 miles north of Parowan,
which would put at least one, maybe two good airports (Milford and
Beaver) in between, and two more even closer but not along the path to
Parowan.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)